Hi,
Try measuring the differences again after a full system reboot (fresh
reboot before each mesurement) or after purging OS read/write caches.
Your phrase tables are most likely cached, which means they are in fact
in memory.
Best,
Marcin
W dniu 11.03.2015 o 19:31, Jesús González Rubio pisze:
Hi,
I'm obtaining some unintuitive timing results when using compact
phrase tables. The average translation time per sentence is much
higher for them in comparison to using gzip'ed phrase tables.
Particularly important is the difference in time required to collect
the options. This table summarizes the timings (in seconds):
Compact Gzip'ed
on-disk in-memory
Init: 5.9 6.3 1882.8
Per-sentence:
- Collect: 5.9 5.8 0.2
- Search: 1.6 1.6 3.3
Results in the table were computed using Moses v2.1 with one single
thread (-th 1) but I've seen similar results using the pre-compiled
binary for moses v3.0. The model comprises two phrase-tables (~2G and
~3M), two lexicalized reordering tables (~700M and ~1M) and two
language models (~31G and ~38M). You can see the exact configuration
in the attached moses.ini file.
Interestingly, there is virtually no difference for the compact table
between the the on-disk and in-memory options. Additionally, timings
were higher for the initial sentences in both cases which I think
should not be the case for the in-memory option.
May be the case that the in-memory option of compact tables
(-minpht-memory -minlexr-memory) is not working properly?
Cheers.
--
Jesús
_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
